We once said the ocean is huge too.

Is there anyone claiming the ocean is full?

or "clogged"

space >>>> air >> ocean > land

It is worth considering the ocean is ~2d while air and space are 3d.

And there's nothing in space that supports life or the ecosystem.

Depends, could our increased use of satellite based sensing be used to support and improve the terrestrial situation?

Is the tradeoff worth it?

It is certain that your life today would not be the same without GPS, so in a sense it does support it.

I mean there's nothing in space that we will damage (unlike the ocean) by using it. I'm all for utilizing space.

The ocean is most certainly 3D. The surface is 2D.

~2d was intended to imply effectively 2d for human activities, even airspace is probably closer to a layered 2d cake than true 3d like deeper space. LEO may be closer to an extension of airspace due to orbits and gravity. Still, due to the exponential growth with respect to the radius, there is significant room in LEO compared to anything terrestrial.

How does this differeniate space and the ocean in your mind? Humans cannot survive in either without some sort of vessel to provide a suitable environment.

My GGGP point was about "clogging" space with satellites, not about habitation. Space is so large that 100K's of satellites is still not clogged. I believe the SpaceX and AWS constellations are planned to get us pretty close to 100k iirc

Quadratic growth, not exponential growth.

I think it's cubic because they sum, polynomial either way, without considering other factors like potential for increased density the further out

Right; I meant the number of satellites supportable at any given altitude, not the number of satellites supportable up to a given altitude.

What do you mean?